No way to pick a president

The voting in what has been the longest presidential campaign begins tomorrow in Iowa -- finally.
Most of the candidates have been making their campaign spiels for a year or more. Yet on the eve of the voting, there is no clear-cut leader among either the Democrats or Republicans. Voters in Iowa and New Hampshire -- the first two contests -- are taking their time.
But this long trek to the primaries will soon become a mad dash. It could all be over within a month, with voters in 30 other states denied the chance to get to know the candidates the way those in Iowa and New Hampshire do.
Is this any way to run a presidential primary race? Certainly not.

The problem is a front-loaded primary schedule that has distorted what should be a deliberate, reasoned process. What we've got instead is something of a land rush, with candidates crisscrossing the country over the next four weeks, mining for votes only where the prospects look promising.
Between tomorrow and Feb. 5, voters in 32 states -- including New Jersey -- will attend caucuses or go to the polls to select the two major-party candidates. Trying to be a player rather than a back bencher in the presidential primary campaign, New Jersey moved its voting from the first week in June to Feb. 5, when it will be in a scrum with 22 other states.
The idea for New Jersey and other states in moving forward on the primary calendar was to get candidates' notice and have them address issues of specific concern to state residents. It's remained that way for Iowa and New Hampshire, which have always had the first contests, but the new schedule hasn't helped voters here or anywhere else.
With the exception of Sen. Hillary Clinton among the Democrats and Rudy Giuliani among the Republicans, word is that other candidates are giving New Jersey short shrift, figuring the two New Yorkers can't be beaten here. So much for discussion of regional issues like mass transit, the environment and energy.
The screwy primary system can also be blamed for making this a very expensive race, with the final tally expected to exceed $1 billion. That's nearly double what was spent in 2000 -- and much of that money comes from donors with special agendas.
With such a concentrated voting schedule, candidates need hefty war chests to wage campaigns in states across the country. In previous years, a victory or near-victory in Iowa or New Hampshire would generate momentum and with it an infusion of contributions. But for those running this year, the dynamics have changed.
Candidates are more dependent -- and earlier than ever -- on contributors. The latest fundraising figures show the eight Democrats have raised $243 million and the 10 Republicans $174 million. And that's only through the end of September.
It doesn't have to be this way. The national party leaders need to assert control over a primary process run amok.
Some interesting options have been proposed. The National Association of Secretaries of State has called for a series of four regional primaries -- Northeast, South, Midwest and West. Each month, one region would vote, with the order rotating every presidential election year. Another proposal would have small states going first, with the biggest delegate loads coming at the end of the primary season.
Neither proposal has received serious consideration. Instead, in what amounts to a free-for-all, some 30 states tried to rob Iowa and New Hampshire of the power to define this year's presidential race. It hasn't worked. Those two states, with their relative handful of voters, are still going first, followed by a crush of states all trying to be noticed. It's not a very rational or representative approach to selecting the next president.